Ann wrote:It's one of the many reasons I can't abide progressives. They think they know it all. But we've seen where their policies and moral character have brought this great nation. No worries, someone else will pay for what you want. Just hold you hand out and cry a little. It will come.

Dear Ann, Dear Sweet Little Ann, you have been asleep under a rock for the past 40 years, haven't you? Well, you must have been because otherwise you wouldn't believe the egregious new position taken by right-wingers that they are the party with both the skills and knowledge as to how to bring down the deficit and save our future. This is the party that took Seriously, this is the party that systematically repealed every law or code that was in place to prevent the "too big to fail banks" from getting too big to fail.us to two wars and trillion of dollars of debt -- or do you remember buying war bonds to support efforts to destroy Iraq and Afghanistan? This is the party built by the wealth of the Romney-billionaires to rewrite the tax code so they pay little or no taxes.

Go back under your rock, Ann, the rest of us are working as hard as we can with a full-time job and two part-time jobs to pay for your mistakes and aren't interested in letting you or your kind ever screw things up this badly again.

This is the party that took Seriously, this is the party that systematically repealed every law or code that was in place to prevent the "too big to fail banks" from getting too big to fail.us to two wars and trillion of dollars of debt -- or do you remember buying war bonds to support efforts to destroy Iraq and Afghanistan?

Ann might or might not have been living under a rock, however it is obvious she is more knowledgeable than you are regarding recent history. More Democrats voted to repeal Glass-Stegall than voted against it, and a Democrat President signed that bill into law, and that is just a fact. To accuse the Republicans of repealing the very bill that prevented the too big to fail concept, is just down right lying. The only people who continue to spout that line of baloney are nothing more than partisan hacks and their post lack any creditably. My suggest for the far left liberals, if lies are the only thing you have to attack Republicans your message will far on deaf ears, and will further your prove agenda is based on nothing but lies.

Now John, I am probably one of the farthest left liberals that post here. Speaking as a far left liberal, we never considered Clinton a lib to begin with. Not only did he sign the repeal of Glass-Stegall, (which you correctly point to as one of the key causes for the meltdown) he also signed NAFTA, and the 96 Telecommunications Act. (which let the media consolidation Genie out of the bottle which led to the decline of actual news gathering and reporting and led to Corporate News Infotainment and is one of the biggest reasons we have such a partisan divide in this country as well as shockingly ignorant discourse.)

Obama is no liberal either, he, like nearly all of our current politicians, is a wholly owned subsidiary of his corporate sponsors. The private insurance mandate of the Affordable care act was a conservative idea (Heritage Foundation) and concession to the Insurance industry. There would be no constitutional challenge had he gone the single payer or public option route.

It is not "BIG" government and "spending" that is the problem. The problem is that the government is not for and by the people anymore, it is for and by the highest bidder. The TRUE liberals know that it doesn't really matter who wins until we can wrest our representatives away from the obscene amount of CASH that influence everything, we will see the status-quo continue.

Public funding of elections only! Constitutional amendment declaring that corporations are NOT citizens and Money is NOT speech. Trust bust the media conglomerates. These are just a few things that need to happen before we have our voice and representatives back. If we continue on the road we are on now, the concentration of wealth will continue to funnel to the top at exponential rates, the government as we know it will cease to function, and those who cannot afford private security, private education, etc. will be the new age surfs, barely subsisting to be exploited by the haves.

The laissez-faire "free-market" utopia that so many conservatives think they seek will inherently end as I described as above if one follows it to it's natural conclusion. History has borne this out and it will happen again. The sad part is so many of the same conservatives think they will actually be one of the "haves" when in reality, if one can't afford lobbyists now,one will never be a player. Your small business will be wiped out by the big boys you so admire and you will be right there with the rest of the surfs, serving the interests of the bottom line for Americorp LLC.

So yea, don't claim Clinton fans are Lefty Liberals. Thanks.

Obama is no liberal either, he, like nearly all of our current politicians, is a wholly owned subsidiary of his corporate sponsors. The private insurance mandate of the Affordable care act was a conservative idea (Heritage Foundation) and concession to the Insurance industry. There would be no constitutional challenge had he gone the single payer or public option route.

SteveM wrote:Coffman drinks Limbaugh Kool-aid. He hasn't had an original idea since he ran last term. Dem or Repub, I don't care, I want Congressmen who are working for us representing us not Glen Beck, not Rupert Murdoch, not Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. I want elected officials to be beholden to their constituents not corporate sponsors, not big money donors, not super pacs.

Mike Coffman needs to take a moment, look in the mirror, and ask himself if he honestly and tirelessly represented the people of Colorado during his current term? The President won Colorado. Do Coloradans really believe he doesn't love America in his heart? Does Mike Coffnan love Colorado in his heart? Because if he did, he wouldn't have landed our name in the national press for over a week attached to comments insulting the President. Coffman should drop out. He is out of step with his constituents and nation. He should get a right-wing radio show on blasphemous KHOW instead.

Well I'd bet dollars to donuts that his opponent is beholden to assorted special interests as well. As to KHOW how exactly have they blasphemed other than the fact they don't share your political philosophy (which really isn't blasphemy at all)?

Ann wrote:It's one of the many reasons I can't abide progressives. They think they know it all. But we've seen where their policies and moral character have brought this great nation. No worries, someone else will pay for what you want. Just hold you hand out and cry a little. It will come.

Dear Ann, Dear Sweet Little Ann, you have been asleep under a rock for the past 40 years, haven't you? Well, you must have been because otherwise you wouldn't believe the egregious new position taken by right-wingers that they are the party with both the skills and knowledge as to how to bring down the deficit and save our future. This is the party that took Seriously, this is the party that systematically repealed every law or code that was in place to prevent the "too big to fail banks" from getting too big to fail.us to two wars and trillion of dollars of debt -- or do you remember buying war bonds to support efforts to destroy Iraq and Afghanistan? This is the party built by the wealth of the Romney-billionaires to rewrite the tax code so they pay little or no taxes.

Go back under your rock, Ann, the rest of us are working as hard as we can with a full-time job and two part-time jobs to pay for your mistakes and aren't interested in letting you or your kind ever screw things up this badly again.

This is the party that took Seriously, this is the party that systematically repealed every law or code that was in place to prevent the "too big to fail banks" from getting too big to fail.us to two wars and trillion of dollars of debt -- or do you remember buying war bonds to support efforts to destroy Iraq and Afghanistan?

Ann might or might not have been living under a rock, however it is obvious she is more knowledgeable than you are regarding recent history. More Democrats voted to repeal Glass-Stegall than voted against it, and a Democrat President signed that bill into law, and that is just a fact. To accuse the Republicans of repealing the very bill that prevented the too big to fail concept, is just down right lying. The only people who continue to spout that line of baloney are nothing more than partisan hacks and their post lack any creditably. My suggest for the far left liberals, if lies are the only thing you have to attack Republicans your message will far on deaf ears, and will further your prove agenda is based on nothing but lies.

Now John, I am probably one of the farthest left liberals that post here. Speaking as a far left liberal, we never considered Clinton a lib to begin with. Not only did he sign the repeal of Glass-Stegall, (which you correctly point to as one of the key causes for the meltdown) he also signed NAFTA, and the 96 Telecommunications Act. (which let the media consolidation Genie out of the bottle which led to the decline of actual news gathering and reporting and led to Corporate News Infotainment and is one of the biggest reasons we have such a partisan divide in this country as well as shockingly ignorant discourse.)

Obama is no liberal either, he, like nearly all of our current politicians, is a wholly owned subsidiary of his corporate sponsors. The private insurance mandate of the Affordable care act was a conservative idea (Heritage Foundation) and concession to the Insurance industry. There would be no constitutional challenge had he gone the single payer or public option route.

It is not "BIG" government and "spending" that is the problem. The problem is that the government is not for and by the people anymore, it is for and by the highest bidder. The TRUE liberals know that it doesn't really matter who wins until we can wrest our representatives away from the obscene amount of CASH that influence everything, we will see the status-quo continue.

Public funding of elections only! Constitutional amendment declaring that corporations are NOT citizens and Money is NOT speech. Trust bust the media conglomerates. These are just a few things that need to happen before we have our voice and representatives back. If we continue on the road we are on now, the concentration of wealth will continue to funnel to the top at exponential rates, the government as we know it will cease to function, and those who cannot afford private security, private education, etc. will be the new age surfs, barely subsisting to be exploited by the haves.

The laissez-faire "free-market" utopia that so many conservatives think they seek will inherently end as I described as above if one follows it to it's natural conclusion. History has borne this out and it will happen again. The sad part is so many of the same conservatives think they will actually be one of the "haves" when in reality, if one can't afford lobbyists now,one will never be a player. Your small business will be wiped out by the big boys you so admire and you will be right there with the rest of the surfs, serving the interests of the bottom line for Americorp LLC.

So yea, don't claim Clinton fans are Lefty Liberals. Thanks.

It is not "BIG" government and "spending" that is the problem.

I respectfully disagree, big government and spending is the problem, and the more money the government controls either directly or indirectly the bigger the problem becomes. Anytime you concentrate a high level of power and money into the hands of a very few select individuals, the greater the possibility of corruption and waste, be it government or corporations. Personally I would like to see and will continue to work for a smaller federal government that functions as a responsible regulator and would prevent the corporations from becoming to large and more powerful by absorbing smaller independent companies. It would also prevent the government from becoming a go between for taxpayer money. Any and all attempts of income distributions by the government using taxpayer money, will create the same problem as the concentration of wealth in corporations.

A smaller government and more competition in the market would allow the average citizen to vote with their own money, In my opinion the average citizen should be the ones to determine the winners and losers in our economy. Yes there will be losers as well as winners, and that is exactly how it should be. Companies supplying good services and products at a competitive price will be rewarded, the ones who don't will fall by the wayside. You see, I don't think the government should be picking the winners and losers.

Bottom line is, the less money and power the government has direct or indirect control of, the less incentives big corporation would have to bribe our elected officials. If you want the government to really start representing the average citizen, then take away their power to do anything other than that. Have the government maintain a military, build and maintain the country's infrastructure, and negotiate and signed treaties with foreign countries, if the government does that, they will also be providing for the "general welfare of the country".

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Oct 11 1798John Adams (Nation's 2nd President)

As a professed Christian, should President Obama object to Representative Coffman calling him un-American for running up more US debt than did President Bush? As Chris Plante says, if liberals, progressives, and Democrats did not have double standards, then they would have no standards at all.

I would hope that we could have an honest debate without the use of logical fallacies such as the ad hominem fallacy to attack Representative Coffman. One web site calls it one of the most common non-rational arguments. I wonder why Reporter Kurtis Lee still reports on non-rational arguments against Representative Coffman? I wonder if the reporter recognizes a non-rational argument?

HelloI am glad to see you consulting Scripture to help you understand the world, but...isn't there a difference between non-patriotism and being unAmerican, especially when viewed through the birther lens?

A major factor in all religions can be described by the tenet Tikkun Olam

SteveM wrote:Miklosi drinks (name of Hollywood celebrity) Kool-aid. He hasn't had an original idea. Dem or Repub, I don't care, I want Congressmen who are working for us representing us not (names of many NBC network employees). I want elected officials to be beholden to their constituents not corporate sponsors, not big money donors, not super pacs.

Steve, don't be like many other people on here who see everything but their own double-standard. As you read, it goes both ways.

Quite Frankly wrote:The repeal of Glass–Steagall was signed by Bill Clinton who was a Democrat last time I looked and 169 of 207 House Democrats voted for the bill. But tell us again how it was all the right wingers fault

Clinton was a Democrat, but he was not, then or now, a liberal. By the crap he favored, pushed and signed, he may be correctly called a conservative.

As a professed Christian, should President Obama object to Representative Coffman calling him un-American for running up more US debt than did President Bush? As Chris Plante says, if liberals, progressives, and Democrats did not have double standards, then they would have no standards at all.

I would hope that we could have an honest debate without the use of logical fallacies such as the ad hominem fallacy to attack Representative Coffman. One web site calls it one of the most common non-rational arguments. I wonder why Reporter Kurtis Lee still reports on non-rational arguments against Representative Coffman? I wonder if the reporter recognizes a non-rational argument?

HelloI am glad to see you consulting Scripture to help you understand the world, but...isn't there a difference between non-patriotism and being unAmerican, especially when viewed through the birther lens?

Hi,

I would make a distinction between someone who is a birther and claiming that someones actions are un-American. After all, Alger Hiss was of an old Maryland family. However, his spying for the Soviet Union was un-American.

Our founding fathers wanted Americans and those immigrating here to put off the old world ways and forget the old world feuds. More recently, as noted in Leaderless Jihad, Europe has had extreme difficulty in dealing with Muslims because the idea of being French is a cultural identity. In contrast, being American is a philosophical identity and adherence to rules of behavior and moral values.

ALLEN E wrote:I liked the Mike Coffman who served in state government. I liked the Mike Coffman who volunteered to go to the Middle East. But, somewhere he has lost his way and has morphed into a Christine O'Donnell/Ken Buck-like personality.

What we need in Congress is to find someone capable of finding compromise and solutions to our critical problems. Not supporting a screamer who yells out "you lie". Or, in the case of Coffman "I am not sure he was born in the U.S.".

Congress should not be an institution where we send hatemongers. We shouldn't reward someone with hate qualities by sending him or her to Washington.

I'm troubled by Coffman.

So people who yell out "You lie" or make the comment "I am not sure he was born in the U.S." are hate mongers??? Wow. Should they be charged with hate speech? If those comments offend you then you have incredibly thin skin. Dissent was ok according to Pelosi or Reid when Bush was president. I guess we're not supposed to comment on anything Obama says.

Yes, they are hate mongers!!!!!! Especially when one considers all of the circumstances. In the first instance, on September 9, 2009, Wilson shouted at President Barack Obama while Obama addressed a joint session of Congress to outline his proposal for reforming health care. Obama said: "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." In a breach of decorum, Wilson pointed at Obama and shouted, "You lie!". House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said he has attended some 40 presidential speeches during his 28 years in the chamber and Wilson’s conduct was unprecedented. Former President Jimmy Carter said the outburst was "based on racism ... There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president". Although Wilson stood before the cameras and issued an apology, he refused to send a letter of apology to Obama.

In the second instance, this is not the first time Coffman has demonstrated he has ties with Tea. There is absolutely no question that Obama was born in Hawaii. But, a fringe of birthers continue to swirl the "blue water". For what reason? Personally, I believe it is based on hate.

No one is saying dissent is forbidden. I think you are exaggerating a bit. Dissent, however, has its place. Should dissenters try to disrupt the swearing in of a new president? Or, during an inaugural address? Is dissent proper in the chambers of the Supreme Court during oral arguments? Is dissent permissible in the gallery during sessions of Congress?

Wilson's outburst show a lack of decorum and bad taste. I would hardly cite Jimmy Carter as a source. He has no proof of any racist feelings towards Obama or that people do not want a black president. We are all tired of the race card being played whenever one disagrees with the Obama. Questioning Obama's birth place is not hateful. Misguided but not hateful.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it....."-Benjamin Franklin

ALLEN E wrote:I liked the Mike Coffman who served in state government. I liked the Mike Coffman who volunteered to go to the Middle East. But, somewhere he has lost his way and has morphed into a Christine O'Donnell/Ken Buck-like personality.

What we need in Congress is to find someone capable of finding compromise and solutions to our critical problems. Not supporting a screamer who yells out "you lie". Or, in the case of Coffman "I am not sure he was born in the U.S.".

Congress should not be an institution where we send hatemongers. We shouldn't reward someone with hate qualities by sending him or her to Washington.

I'm troubled by Coffman.

So people who yell out "You lie" or make the comment "I am not sure he was born in the U.S." are hate mongers??? Wow. Should they be charged with hate speech? If those comments offend you then you have incredibly thin skin. Dissent was ok according to Pelosi or Reid when Bush was president. I guess we're not supposed to comment on anything Obama says.

Yes, they are hate mongers!!!!!! Especially when one considers all of the circumstances. In the first instance, on September 9, 2009, Wilson shouted at President Barack Obama while Obama addressed a joint session of Congress to outline his proposal for reforming health care. Obama said: "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." In a breach of decorum, Wilson pointed at Obama and shouted, "You lie!". House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said he has attended some 40 presidential speeches during his 28 years in the chamber and Wilson’s conduct was unprecedented. Former President Jimmy Carter said the outburst was "based on racism ... There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president". Although Wilson stood before the cameras and issued an apology, he refused to send a letter of apology to Obama.

In the second instance, this is not the first time Coffman has demonstrated he has ties with Tea. There is absolutely no question that Obama was born in Hawaii. But, a fringe of birthers continue to swirl the "blue water". For what reason? Personally, I believe it is based on hate.

No one is saying dissent is forbidden. I think you are exaggerating a bit. Dissent, however, has its place. Should dissenters try to disrupt the swearing in of a new president? Or, during an inaugural address? Is dissent proper in the chambers of the Supreme Court during oral arguments? Is dissent permissible in the gallery during sessions of Congress?

Wilson's conduct was almost as deplorable as 0bama attacking the supreme court members during the State of the Union address. Especially since the claim 0bama made about foreign corporations being able to donate to a candidate was completely false.

When Obama made his statement during the State of the Union address he said "last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limits in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I am urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps right this wrong".

It is important to point out that Obama criticized only one judicial decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. He did not attack the Court itself or impugn the good faith or motives of any individual justice. Although he objected to the manner in which the Court exercised its power of judicial review in a particular case, he did not express any objection to the Court’s power of judicial review or even remotely imply that he supported any kind of curtailment of the Court’s institutional powers. In contrast with earlier periods of American history, when controversial Supreme Court opinions often provoked calls for abridgment or abolition of the power of judicial review, the adverse reaction to Citizens United has not generated any assault on the Court itself.

UBS, the Swiss financial services company, for example, is headquartered in Zurich and Basel, Switzerland, but its American subsidiaries are free to run a PAC (UBS Americas) to raise money for federal campaigns. UBS Americas is among Mitt Romney’s top 20 donors in the 2012 election cycle.... So is Credit Suisse, also headquartered in Zurich, whose U.S. subsidiaries have raised over $200,000. So is Barclays, headquartered in London, whose U.S. subsidiaries have raised over $150,000.

This is perfectly legal so long as it’s American employees running the PAC and contributing the money, and so long as the PAC remains unfinanced by the foreign parent corporation.

In Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the Founders forbid members of government from receiving gifts or titles of nobility from foreign states for fear that the fledgling democracy would be corrupted by outside influence. These concerns would echo through the next two centuries as immigrant populations exploded, foreign wars escalated, and the Soviet Union rose to power. (For all the leeway that U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations enjoy, the ban on contributions from foreign nationals was reaffirmed on January 9th of this year.) The worry is that domestic subsidiaries would put their foreign parent company's political and economic interests ahead of their country's. Even with the prescribed separation of the U.S. subsidiary’s political activities from the foreign parent, it’s easy to imagine a situation in which those rules are bent or broken. It’s even easier to imagine this happening in a post-Citizens United world.

In June 2009 the conservative majority of the Court did not like the narrow scope of the case, and ordered new briefs to be submitted. Scalia wrote in the opinion, "The case was reargued in this Court after the Court asked the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing whether we should overrule either or both Austin and the part of McConnell which addresses the facial validity of 2 U. S. C. §441b. See 557 U. S. ___ (2009). In response Justice Stevens noted, "essentially five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law."

The broad idea of keeping corporate money out of politics dates back to the 1907 Tillman Act, and all precedents were on the side of insisting that corporations did not have the same rights as actual, living human beings. The entire episode came as a shock to many Court observers, especially when one reviews Roberts testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Roberts pledged to pay close attention to precedent. Roberts told the committee, "I do think it is a jolt to the legal system when one overrules a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. It is not enough - and the Court has emphasized this on several occasions - it is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided. That really doesn't answer the question. It just poses the question." He went on to paraphrase Alexander Hamilton in citing Federalist #78 "to avoid an arbitrary discretion in judges, they need to be bound down by rules and precedents."

Another internet source makes the following observation -

In fact, presidents have a history of directly addressing and criticizing the Supreme Court Harding criticized the Supreme Court for overturning the Child Labor Law in his 1922 State of the Union. In 1922, the Supreme Court found the Child Labor Law of 1919 to be unconstitutional. In his State of the Union address, President Warren G. Harding criticized the court for putting "this problem outside the proper domain of Federal regulation until the Constitution is so amended as to give the Congress indubitable authority. I recommend the submission of such an amendment."

Reagan criticized the court for its ruling on school prayer. In his 1988 State of the Union address, Reagan expressed his displeasure with the court's recent ruling on school prayer: And let me add here: So many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation's health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.

Reagan directly attacked the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade. In his 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan attacked the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, during a discussion on abortion:

And while I'm on this subject, each day your Members observe a 200-year-old tradition meant to signify America is one nation under God. I must ask: If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can't freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land?[...]

During our first 3 years, we have joined bipartisan efforts to restore protection of the law to unborn children. Now, I know this issue is very controversial. But unless and until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a living human being, can we justify assuming without proof that it isn't? No one has yet offered such proof; indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. We should rise above bitterness and reproach, and if Americans could come together in a spirit of understanding and helping, then we could find positive solutions to the tragedy of abortion.

Bush condemned "activist judges" who are "redefining marriage by court order." In his 2004 State of the Union address, Bush criticized "activist judges" who, according to him, were "redefining marriage by court order":

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.

DearForBrains wrote:Coffman is big on insulting people, then he'll say no comment.He appears to be as un-American as they come. You are insulting Mike Coffman--BO is unpatriotic and I doubt that he is a real American--he's the insulting jerk--anti-president B.O.

anti president BO is the hatemonger--big time and a bully to boot. Coffman is right to question his patriotism and his birthplace--BO just stinks to high heaven and should be challenged--he has no defense--he's the most embarrassing person to the presidency. The British can't stand him and snub him and his ho.